[KSMountain]

[quote=deadzone]KSM, how do you see that the ability to pay for $1M houses gets easier with age? Given today’s culture, the only way that is true is due to inheritance.
[/quote]
Some folks accumulate savings. Some accumulate equity in previous homes. Some leverage one home to go into a nicer home maybe even if they shouldn’t. It’s not like they’re putting 0-10% down – they bring equity to the table. So they’re not paying the $7k/mo you quoted. Not everyone pays PMI and MR.

Folks have had time for their businesses to mature.

Folks get raises. Maybe someone starts at $40k a year and ends up at $150k a year or more.

They get married, and maybe their spouse makes good money too.

Or folks have worked in enough companies and finally had some stock options pay off. I know a guy that at his first 3 companies they were worthless, but at his last two, he did very very well.

Folks become senior managers and get better and better bonuses.

And yes there is inheritance.

DZ, let’s take Del Mar, west of the 5.

There are a lot of homes there. A lot of expensive homes. Who do you think lives in them?

In general they are not the least responsible and least accomplished among us. They are not the “typical” folks in today’s culture you seem to be focused on.

They are the more responsible, the more clever, the harder working, the more charismatic in some cases, the more ambitious, the better savers, the more “greedy” perhaps. They may have had the benefit of educated parents and a good upbringing that set a good example and set them off in a good direction, even though they haven’t inherited yet.

They are people who like nice things and are willing to work hard for them. I am excluding here crooks and inheritance. Some are professionals, some are executives. Some are business owners.

Do you think the supply of folks like that is now somehow depleted? For all time? Baloney.

Unemployment will not be at 10% for the rest of our lives, probably not even the next five years, in my opinion.

To tell you the truth, I am starting to see some “green shoots” the last few months. (To use an intentionally provocative phrase).

[KSMountain]

[quote=deadzone]KSM, how do you see that the ability to pay for $1M houses gets easier with age? Given today’s culture, the only way that is true is due to inheritance.
[/quote]
Some folks accumulate savings. Some accumulate equity in previous homes. Some leverage one home to go into a nicer home maybe even if they shouldn’t. It’s not like they’re putting 0-10% down – they bring equity to the table. So they’re not paying the $7k/mo you quoted. Not everyone pays PMI and MR.

Folks have had time for their businesses to mature.

Folks get raises. Maybe someone starts at $40k a year and ends up at $150k a year or more.

They get married, and maybe their spouse makes good money too.

Or folks have worked in enough companies and finally had some stock options pay off. I know a guy that at his first 3 companies they were worthless, but at his last two, he did very very well.

Folks become senior managers and get better and better bonuses.

And yes there is inheritance.

DZ, let’s take Del Mar, west of the 5.

There are a lot of homes there. A lot of expensive homes. Who do you think lives in them?

In general they are not the least responsible and least accomplished among us. They are not the “typical” folks in today’s culture you seem to be focused on.

They are the more responsible, the more clever, the harder working, the more charismatic in some cases, the more ambitious, the better savers, the more “greedy” perhaps. They may have had the benefit of educated parents and a good upbringing that set a good example and set them off in a good direction, even though they haven’t inherited yet.

They are people who like nice things and are willing to work hard for them. I am excluding here crooks and inheritance. Some are professionals, some are executives. Some are business owners.

Do you think the supply of folks like that is now somehow depleted? For all time? Baloney.

Unemployment will not be at 10% for the rest of our lives, probably not even the next five years, in my opinion.

To tell you the truth, I am starting to see some “green shoots” the last few months. (To use an intentionally provocative phrase).

[KSMountain]

[quote=deadzone]Most of the wealth produced in the last 20 years was due to the ponzi economy.

Going forward, outside of inheritances, there will be fewer people with large wealth increases than over the last 20 years or so.

…if you can’t see this you are blind.
[/quote]
I don’t know if I agree with this. Heard of Amazon, Qualcomm, Ebay? Even Yahoo at one point was doing quite well.

I remember someone bemoaning in like 2000 that all the cool things on the internet had already happened, all the opportunities were gone. Uh, this was pre Google. Oops, I guess there were a few opportunities left.

Heard of Pixar? Is that ponzi? What about Apple? Folks *are* buying their physical products, and their digital products.

Recall the famous quote of some guy in the patent office in the 1800’s that everything had already been invented. Uh, oops.

Do you think “it’s different now”? I don’t. All the defeatist attitude ensures is that it will be someone else who capitalizes on opportunity, not you.

We’ve got 300 million bored, greedy, spoiled, mostly educated folks here, with the best universities in the world and some semblance of the rule of law. I think that will be a recipe for continued wealth for some segment of our population for awhile yet.

I do worry about our entitlement mentality and what all our overly-educated folks will actually *do*, but it seems to me those things will work themselves out. I think Greed or Keeping up with the Joneses, all driven by our overactive media and marketing and advertising, will continue to ensure that a large percentage of the 300 million continue to reach for the brass ring.

That striving will result in the entrepreneurship, labor, economic activity, saving, etc. that we need.

Perhaps you’re just in the doldrums DZ. Things will get better! If worse comes to worse, we can just make and sell things to the Chinese once they become wealthier than us. Think of how big that market will be if they develop a middle class.

[KSMountain]

[quote=deadzone]Most of the wealth produced in the last 20 years was due to the ponzi economy.

Going forward, outside of inheritances, there will be fewer people with large wealth increases than over the last 20 years or so.

…if you can’t see this you are blind.
[/quote]
I don’t know if I agree with this. Heard of Amazon, Qualcomm, Ebay? Even Yahoo at one point was doing quite well.

I remember someone bemoaning in like 2000 that all the cool things on the internet had already happened, all the opportunities were gone. Uh, this was pre Google. Oops, I guess there were a few opportunities left.

Heard of Pixar? Is that ponzi? What about Apple? Folks *are* buying their physical products, and their digital products.

Recall the famous quote of some guy in the patent office in the 1800’s that everything had already been invented. Uh, oops.

Do you think “it’s different now”? I don’t. All the defeatist attitude ensures is that it will be someone else who capitalizes on opportunity, not you.

We’ve got 300 million bored, greedy, spoiled, mostly educated folks here, with the best universities in the world and some semblance of the rule of law. I think that will be a recipe for continued wealth for some segment of our population for awhile yet.

I do worry about our entitlement mentality and what all our overly-educated folks will actually *do*, but it seems to me those things will work themselves out. I think Greed or Keeping up with the Joneses, all driven by our overactive media and marketing and advertising, will continue to ensure that a large percentage of the 300 million continue to reach for the brass ring.

That striving will result in the entrepreneurship, labor, economic activity, saving, etc. that we need.

Perhaps you’re just in the doldrums DZ. Things will get better! If worse comes to worse, we can just make and sell things to the Chinese once they become wealthier than us. Think of how big that market will be if they develop a middle class.

[KSMountain]

[quote=deadzone]Most of the wealth produced in the last 20 years was due to the ponzi economy.

Going forward, outside of inheritances, there will be fewer people with large wealth increases than over the last 20 years or so.

…if you can’t see this you are blind.
[/quote]
I don’t know if I agree with this. Heard of Amazon, Qualcomm, Ebay? Even Yahoo at one point was doing quite well.

I remember someone bemoaning in like 2000 that all the cool things on the internet had already happened, all the opportunities were gone. Uh, this was pre Google. Oops, I guess there were a few opportunities left.

Heard of Pixar? Is that ponzi? What about Apple? Folks *are* buying their physical products, and their digital products.

Recall the famous quote of some guy in the patent office in the 1800’s that everything had already been invented. Uh, oops.

Do you think “it’s different now”? I don’t. All the defeatist attitude ensures is that it will be someone else who capitalizes on opportunity, not you.

We’ve got 300 million bored, greedy, spoiled, mostly educated folks here, with the best universities in the world and some semblance of the rule of law. I think that will be a recipe for continued wealth for some segment of our population for awhile yet.

I do worry about our entitlement mentality and what all our overly-educated folks will actually *do*, but it seems to me those things will work themselves out. I think Greed or Keeping up with the Joneses, all driven by our overactive media and marketing and advertising, will continue to ensure that a large percentage of the 300 million continue to reach for the brass ring.

That striving will result in the entrepreneurship, labor, economic activity, saving, etc. that we need.

Perhaps you’re just in the doldrums DZ. Things will get better! If worse comes to worse, we can just make and sell things to the Chinese once they become wealthier than us. Think of how big that market will be if they develop a middle class.

[KSMountain]

[quote=deadzone]Most of the wealth produced in the last 20 years was due to the ponzi economy.

Going forward, outside of inheritances, there will be fewer people with large wealth increases than over the last 20 years or so.

…if you can’t see this you are blind.
[/quote]
I don’t know if I agree with this. Heard of Amazon, Qualcomm, Ebay? Even Yahoo at one point was doing quite well.

I remember someone bemoaning in like 2000 that all the cool things on the internet had already happened, all the opportunities were gone. Uh, this was pre Google. Oops, I guess there were a few opportunities left.

Heard of Pixar? Is that ponzi? What about Apple? Folks *are* buying their physical products, and their digital products.

Recall the famous quote of some guy in the patent office in the 1800’s that everything had already been invented. Uh, oops.

Do you think “it’s different now”? I don’t. All the defeatist attitude ensures is that it will be someone else who capitalizes on opportunity, not you.

We’ve got 300 million bored, greedy, spoiled, mostly educated folks here, with the best universities in the world and some semblance of the rule of law. I think that will be a recipe for continued wealth for some segment of our population for awhile yet.

I do worry about our entitlement mentality and what all our overly-educated folks will actually *do*, but it seems to me those things will work themselves out. I think Greed or Keeping up with the Joneses, all driven by our overactive media and marketing and advertising, will continue to ensure that a large percentage of the 300 million continue to reach for the brass ring.

That striving will result in the entrepreneurship, labor, economic activity, saving, etc. that we need.

Perhaps you’re just in the doldrums DZ. Things will get better! If worse comes to worse, we can just make and sell things to the Chinese once they become wealthier than us. Think of how big that market will be if they develop a middle class.

[KSMountain]

[quote=deadzone]Most of the wealth produced in the last 20 years was due to the ponzi economy.

Going forward, outside of inheritances, there will be fewer people with large wealth increases than over the last 20 years or so.

…if you can’t see this you are blind.
[/quote]
I don’t know if I agree with this. Heard of Amazon, Qualcomm, Ebay? Even Yahoo at one point was doing quite well.

I remember someone bemoaning in like 2000 that all the cool things on the internet had already happened, all the opportunities were gone. Uh, this was pre Google. Oops, I guess there were a few opportunities left.

Heard of Pixar? Is that ponzi? What about Apple? Folks *are* buying their physical products, and their digital products.

Recall the famous quote of some guy in the patent office in the 1800’s that everything had already been invented. Uh, oops.

Do you think “it’s different now”? I don’t. All the defeatist attitude ensures is that it will be someone else who capitalizes on opportunity, not you.

We’ve got 300 million bored, greedy, spoiled, mostly educated folks here, with the best universities in the world and some semblance of the rule of law. I think that will be a recipe for continued wealth for some segment of our population for awhile yet.

I do worry about our entitlement mentality and what all our overly-educated folks will actually *do*, but it seems to me those things will work themselves out. I think Greed or Keeping up with the Joneses, all driven by our overactive media and marketing and advertising, will continue to ensure that a large percentage of the 300 million continue to reach for the brass ring.

That striving will result in the entrepreneurship, labor, economic activity, saving, etc. that we need.

Perhaps you’re just in the doldrums DZ. Things will get better! If worse comes to worse, we can just make and sell things to the Chinese once they become wealthier than us. Think of how big that market will be if they develop a middle class.

[KSMountain]

[quote=deadzone]Plus inheritance taxes rates are only going to increase going forward (given that the gov is broke).[/quote]
Maybe so, but they’re ZERO this year, as I understand it.

[KSMountain]

[quote=deadzone]Plus inheritance taxes rates are only going to increase going forward (given that the gov is broke).[/quote]
Maybe so, but they’re ZERO this year, as I understand it.

[KSMountain]

[quote=deadzone]Plus inheritance taxes rates are only going to increase going forward (given that the gov is broke).[/quote]
Maybe so, but they’re ZERO this year, as I understand it.

[KSMountain]

[quote=deadzone]Plus inheritance taxes rates are only going to increase going forward (given that the gov is broke).[/quote]
Maybe so, but they’re ZERO this year, as I understand it.

[KSMountain]

[quote=deadzone]Plus inheritance taxes rates are only going to increase going forward (given that the gov is broke).[/quote]
Maybe so, but they’re ZERO this year, as I understand it.

[KSMountain]

[quote=juice]Just to add my two cents here, all that is necessary to prove the point is to have a large enough number of qualified, upper income buyers not in aggregate, but simply relative to the supply of attractive 1+ million homes on the market in a very specific area, coastal San Diego. I think this is clearly the case when you consider the distribution of wealth in the region, not to mention buyers from outside the state and country.

Additionally, consider that many professionals in the most desirable areas have dual incomes and bring in over 200k+ a year. I can think of endless examples of North County couples we know who both work – one a doctor, one an engineer, one a pharmicist, one a sales engineer, one a teacher and the other a CPA. Again, overall they may represent a small percentage of total families, but in sheer numbers they are sufficient to provide continued demand for those houses.[/quote]
I agree with this whole post. We know several dual income professional couples who are significantly over the 200k sum. And yes, it’s not the percentage of them, but how many there are. That’s not even counting folks with old/inherited money.

[KSMountain]

[quote=juice]Just to add my two cents here, all that is necessary to prove the point is to have a large enough number of qualified, upper income buyers not in aggregate, but simply relative to the supply of attractive 1+ million homes on the market in a very specific area, coastal San Diego. I think this is clearly the case when you consider the distribution of wealth in the region, not to mention buyers from outside the state and country.

Additionally, consider that many professionals in the most desirable areas have dual incomes and bring in over 200k+ a year. I can think of endless examples of North County couples we know who both work – one a doctor, one an engineer, one a pharmicist, one a sales engineer, one a teacher and the other a CPA. Again, overall they may represent a small percentage of total families, but in sheer numbers they are sufficient to provide continued demand for those houses.[/quote]
I agree with this whole post. We know several dual income professional couples who are significantly over the 200k sum. And yes, it’s not the percentage of them, but how many there are. That’s not even counting folks with old/inherited money.

[KSMountain]

[quote=juice]Just to add my two cents here, all that is necessary to prove the point is to have a large enough number of qualified, upper income buyers not in aggregate, but simply relative to the supply of attractive 1+ million homes on the market in a very specific area, coastal San Diego. I think this is clearly the case when you consider the distribution of wealth in the region, not to mention buyers from outside the state and country.

Additionally, consider that many professionals in the most desirable areas have dual incomes and bring in over 200k+ a year. I can think of endless examples of North County couples we know who both work – one a doctor, one an engineer, one a pharmicist, one a sales engineer, one a teacher and the other a CPA. Again, overall they may represent a small percentage of total families, but in sheer numbers they are sufficient to provide continued demand for those houses.[/quote]
I agree with this whole post. We know several dual income professional couples who are significantly over the 200k sum. And yes, it’s not the percentage of them, but how many there are. That’s not even counting folks with old/inherited money.

[Author]

Posts